davecrowson
Rookie
- Jul 3, 2010
- 3
- 2
- 1
Two of the most divisive social issues we face today are abortion and gay rights. If we can agree that governments principle role is to protect our individual unalienable rights then we need to look at how governments position on social issues impact individuals as opposed to looking at how social issues impact society. This provides us a great opportunity to speak to where government should begin and end. If we think about how this issue affects us individually, it helps us understand how we can find unifying solutions to complex and polarizing issues.
We need to fundamentally understand what burdens we are willing to carry ourselves before we place those burdens on society or government. This is the lens we must all use to identify where government should begin and end.
I completely understand people who believe in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception. Many feel it is their covenant with God to vigorously defend the rights of the unborn. To terminate a pregnancy in the face of nation that embraces this belief would be an incredibly difficult decision. While the conditions that lead to unwanted pregnancies vary greatly, so too, do the reasons to terminate vary greatly. Fear of being unable to care for a child or caring for ones self while raising a child, rape, incest, and concern for the health of the mother are among many. Families and society can do a tremendous amount to assuage fear through education and providing alternatives. The more we do as individuals and society to reduce unwanted pregnancies and reduce the uncertainty a mother may face, the greater the chance a mother will choose to bring an unborn child to full term. But despite how deeply rooted feelings are about terminating a pregnancy, individual liberty implies that a person has the right to choose and our government has rightly understood and supported this right. We may not approve of the choice, but it is an individual, not societys, choice to make.
We need to recognize that when we allow society to restrict the rights of individuals, we, as society, put at risk all our rights and liberties. We need to resist the temptation casually say there ought to be a law. Where does it end, the right to own fire arms, the right to be wealthy, the right to speak freely? The same holds true for gay rights or marriage. I am unwilling to impose a life of alienation on my children for being gay. I would prefer this be an individual or family issue and not ask government to accept the burden of imposing or restricting rights to these individuals. I believe that many, who if faced with these issues, would have a visceral reaction to relying on the state to resolve them. Ask those who have lost a gay child to suicide because they were reliant on society to determine what rights, we as individuals, should enjoy.
We need to fundamentally understand what burdens we are willing to carry ourselves before we place those burdens on society or government. This is the lens we must all use to identify where government should begin and end.
I completely understand people who believe in the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception. Many feel it is their covenant with God to vigorously defend the rights of the unborn. To terminate a pregnancy in the face of nation that embraces this belief would be an incredibly difficult decision. While the conditions that lead to unwanted pregnancies vary greatly, so too, do the reasons to terminate vary greatly. Fear of being unable to care for a child or caring for ones self while raising a child, rape, incest, and concern for the health of the mother are among many. Families and society can do a tremendous amount to assuage fear through education and providing alternatives. The more we do as individuals and society to reduce unwanted pregnancies and reduce the uncertainty a mother may face, the greater the chance a mother will choose to bring an unborn child to full term. But despite how deeply rooted feelings are about terminating a pregnancy, individual liberty implies that a person has the right to choose and our government has rightly understood and supported this right. We may not approve of the choice, but it is an individual, not societys, choice to make.
We need to recognize that when we allow society to restrict the rights of individuals, we, as society, put at risk all our rights and liberties. We need to resist the temptation casually say there ought to be a law. Where does it end, the right to own fire arms, the right to be wealthy, the right to speak freely? The same holds true for gay rights or marriage. I am unwilling to impose a life of alienation on my children for being gay. I would prefer this be an individual or family issue and not ask government to accept the burden of imposing or restricting rights to these individuals. I believe that many, who if faced with these issues, would have a visceral reaction to relying on the state to resolve them. Ask those who have lost a gay child to suicide because they were reliant on society to determine what rights, we as individuals, should enjoy.
